Re:Next ten years better than the last ten?
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
2.2 GHz sure kicks 40 MHz,
Indeed. But had Intel's marketing not killed the RISC 680x0 line we could easily have 2.2 GHz on a platform (such as AmigaOS... laugh all you want, it's my favoriate) that would've put MS to shame.
Re:Next ten years better than the last ten?
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
4. Win95/98/NT/2000/XP (poke fun all you want, but you can't argue that these weren't a major improvement over what they replaced)
Only for the x86 lemmings. Those of us who were on the 680x0 train (which was steaming happily into the RISC Alpha until Intel monopolized the consumer market) had trouble accepting the fact that we were now being forced to use a product that was inherently broken just because the advertising market killed the superior technology.
Then the common folk added insult to injury by labeling us as "whiners" just because _THEY_ didn't know how bad they were being screwed.
Honestly, I hope that every person in the room was thinking the same thing:
*under breath* "Why aren't we getting digital copies of your speech, numbskull? Because your company would sue us into oblivion and have the FBI raid our homes if we did!" *grumble* *continue scratching notes feverishly with pen*
But you could lose everything you own, thanks to a Microsoft software bug and the EULA plainly states 'As Is' and they will not be held liable for your losses
That's a bit arbitrary since GNU doesn't claim to be responsible for your data--but at least GNU doesn't charge you $200/copy for it.
Re:I really hate this argument
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure
I agree, for now. What's going to happen in five years when KDE or Gnome developers decide to continue with their fledgling registries? They're not official called a "registry" but it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out where a general system database is going.
Perhaps it was because no reporter was willing to bet their career on a laptop running Windows XP?
I chuckled at the same thing but figured it was because no one wanted to risk being dragged out of the room by the FBI for reproducing copyrighted material with a proper license agreement signed by Ballmer, the entire MS legal department, and Bill Gates' dog to boot.
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves.
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Just another daily bash-Microsoft article
We need a good balance. The major media releases snippets which bash Linux just as often, if not more. Heck, even here on/. I'm constantly inundated with pro-MS server banner ads which peddle the supposed lower TCO and higher performance. Perhaps that's just for the laugh factor, though...
The amount of bookkeeping the type systems of Pascal, C, Java, and C++ force on the programmer is significant
I don't see that as a bad thing. Writing routines to draw boxes, circles, requesters, dialogs, or windows is a significant load on programmers. Eventually programmers created libraries such as the svgalibs and evolved towards X11. X11 inherited additional functionality through interfaces such as GTK, Qt, GDK, KDE libs, or whatever Windows uses. The area isn't really my forte but it shows that if a large and cumbersome task is needed again and again the programmers will write libraries to handle the necessary manipulations.
With languages that attempt to intuitively guess at manipulating variables of different types there's no need to work on refining a system to generate numerical values from strings or to think of strings as numerical values (ML). If that very basic division is a constant reminder to the programmer that a "420" isn't really a 420, combined with the considerations of what it's going to take to turn that set of ASCII values into the proper number, some of it may carryover the next time someone else's library is #included.
If you're concerned about programmer productivity, efficacy, and correctness
Heh.:-) That's a bean-counter issue, not a programming issue. We all know that the managers want more code, faster, with fewer noticeable bugs, and they want it last quarter. I feel this is why the proprietary code industry constantly reinvents itself with new featureware. The latest programming language can just as easily be a product of the push for featureware or the latest end-around flanking maneuver to hedge in the market with IP. Strictly speaking it can't compete in quality with the code produced by enthusiasts who don't have deadlines and don't have a corporate agenda that needs them to use the latest macro library in order to use features which will justify a patent or IP lawsuit.
A language that forces you to think about the storage size and layout of every variable is certainly strict, but is that really the kind of strictness that prevents errors
It's certainly not the only mode of thought that prevents errors. You and I both know that good programming is like good health--there's no single magic secret. If the programmer develops the intricate mode of thought it will aid their programming just as a routine of gentle exercise aids health. You just need to remember to do it often enough for it to eventually become an embedded mode. In today's world being pedantic about variables isn't stressed because enough languages make the correct assumptions (and because managers don't like to have their superiority challenged). I feel that the overall model created explains why security isn't a strong point in proprietary code. The reason is both economical and philosophical.
That may be true, but all things are not equal
You're right. I don't program for a living so I can afford to preach from the philosophical armchair of ideality.:-) I've found that if I talk about the ideal points of my own industry (pharmaceutical R&D) the people above me on the corporate ladder turn quite rude.
I don't believe that the grouping is statistically significant. Canada can provide cheap high speed internet access to areas as remote as the Whitehorse (Yukon), Thompson (northern Manitoba), and Edmonton (Alberta).
Aside from recognizing strict anticompetitive profit schemes, why can't the US do it?
The only way to really know would be to do a double-blind crossover trial of 10000 programmers given the same kernel-sized assignment in two different languages and compare the number of overflows in each matching the two subject groups for time spent, length of code, number and grouping of variables and arrays, and possibly even match them for the institution that they were schooled at to accomodate for different trends in teaching methods. It's pretty much impossible.
All things being equal, a strict structure produces fewer errors.
It might as well be a strict-typed language and barf on an expression such as "2" + 2!
That's my personal preference. I don't want the language that I use to try and make assumptions about what to do with the combination of different types of variables. As a programmer I feel that it enforces a valid and advantageous logic of purism when the language requires that the programmer be constantly aware of delineations between variable types. This mindset encourages the programmer to constantly think about what data is passed using the variables. I feel that, if this were strictly enforced, it would lead to fewer buffer overflows. Programmers in general would be mindful that the data in the buffer might not be what they expect.
Certainly this approach may require routines to translate variables from one type to another and back. Graphical toolkits evolved and so would variable transformations.
See, I could've sunk myself into debt I couldn't handle
No, you couldn't. You'd have to be a complete reject to screw up in the military.
My mother could have sunk herself into debt she couldn't handle, but didn't
No, she couldn't. There was no wholesale industry in keeping people a large portion of the working population in debt in her time. As long as a person was willing to work an honest day they were paid a living wage. Her generation would have to be complete rejects to get into debt.
the decision to *not* get into extensive debt was made when our respective incomes were low
Even though you've always managed to just scrape by you refuse to acknowledge that it would have taken no more than twice that scraping to have forced you to live on credit. Just a little less on the BAS/BAQ. Just a little more on the price of gasoline. Just a little more on the rent. Any one of those factors could've pushed you from your sanctimonious frugality into a life on credit. You're hopeless in your self-righteousness.
See, having grown up in economic conditions that you claim must 'force' everyone into debt
How many years were you subsidized? I didn't say everyone. I said a statistically significant portion of the population. The average credit card debt for American households is $8k. It's easy for you to label your fellow Americans as morons.
I'm not buying that argument
I have yet to meet a dictator who will admit they've wronged anyone.
Business does not equal individual. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is silly.
Not in the slightest. Those who sit closest to the top take the lion's share of the salary. It sure is something that American CEOs are the best compensated in the world or that American execs (and politicians) happily vote themselves massive pay raises, bonuses, benefits, and retirement packages that they would never consider offering to the people actually paying the taxes.
Pyramid scheme? No go read an economics book
I imagine you're relying on a definition which makes one scheme legal and the other scheme an illegal pyramid scheme. The inner workings of both are the same.
Did you receive money? Did you sign papers saying you'd pay it back? Did you spend the money?
I'll happily sign my name to a dishonest contract for the opportunity to expose a fraud. I'll do it time and again with every chance I'm given.
Unless the lender violated the law, that's "real debt"
I suppose you'll continue to deny the power of corporate lobbies to manipulate laws above and beyond the control of the truthful meaning of democracy. Once again I refer to the Irish Potato Famine and the American Great Depression and the recent.com boom-bust. The actions taken by predatory lenders at those times was perfectly "legal" but you'll be hard pressed to find people who will support the intent behind them--outside of those who profited. Excepting those who are already quite wealthy I cannot find a single person who felt that their investments were used fairly from '99-'02. Add insult to injury when average salary decreases 10% over '00-'02.
AFAICT you're just someone who wants any wild reason to feel like you're not doing a wrong by not paying money owed back
Now we're back to the original point. You're taking the moral high road because mother military gave you an opportunity that most Americans don't have. What did you say about ad hominem earlier? You're ignoring the actual debate: that the debt is not real debt but is part of a contrived scheme.
ending money and expecting to receive it back, with a fair interest rate, is not morally reprehensible
Since when is 19% APR, plus any tax and fee that can be stuffed into legal fine print, a fair interest rate? You're justifying yourself using terms which you don't qualify for.
When are you guys going to stop sprouting this nonsense?
You're right. George Bush himself said that we don't need to give tax breaks to the rich because they can probably afford accountants who can find the loopholes for them.
And your statistical analysis completely ignores the return that the rich get. So what if they paid 64% of the total federal tax? They also reap the lion's share of the profit from the businesses which the government disburses the tax money to! The government does disburse that money, right? Where does it go? Who gets it? Don't cop out with roads and utilities.
What's it called? Pyramid scheme? If it costs me 64 million to get everyone else to chip in 14 million then I'm turning a profit when I walk away with 78 million.
The simple fact is that you signed your name on paperwork
You would support any morally reprehensible action as long as you can get a signature on a legally enforceably contract first. Perhaps you should check your own honor. I feel no guilt in exposing a disingenuous contract.
You have, yourself, illustrated that the individual has no control over a system which has been overwhelmingly mapped by the larger organization.
Of course the credit companies try to make what they can. Of course they use such methods.
Good. As long as we both accept that life isn't fair then they can assume their share of the responsibility for lending money to people who are in a demographic that they well know cannot repay the money. It's called predatory lending, it is illegal, and it's also very costly to prove. That's very convenient since, by virtue of being the lender, they know the client can't afford to mount a legal battle.
you're dishonoring yourself
Spare me the sap. The credit industry is the antithesis of honor--profitting from the misfortunes of others (natural or contrived). Perhaps you should read up about the way Irish Catholics were treated during the Potato Famine and afterwards. I take a large amount of enjoyment in exposing a fraud. My honor is in knowing that I will not waste my life lamenting being taken advantage of by thieves.
Okay... back to the meaningful point rather than picking apart the nature of personal association...
Where is there any evidence that this is being used for harassment? I think the citizens of America would be quite happy to know which of these people are receiving the greatest small business subsidies from their taxpayer dollars.
The KKK is a convicted aggressive violent organization.
Anti-RNC coalitions most often stage political action. This rarely involves any sort of physical violence but most often in private attorneys investigating campaign contributions and mapping networks of individuals who are working together to defraud taxpayers.
As usual, though, since your only concept of political protest is violent then it's obvious that everyone's idea of political protest is violent.
I do have a legitimate question: other than harrassment, what is a legitimate purpose for these postings?
Mapping social networks, following taxpayer money, tracing illegitimate contributions which have been laundered through legitimate avenues?
That's what the American government boils down to: money. It's not about right or wrong. It's not about truth and justice. It's about PROFIT. If there's ever anything about our government which puzzles you or doesn't seem right you have simply to do one thing: Take 10 minutes out to follow the money and see who profits.
I do not lament the posting of lists of political advocates. Third party advocates are already on watch lists as "individuals of interest". Why shouldn't major party advocates be on lists of "possible money launderers"?
..the crybabies in the stupid party love to have all sorts of lists THEMSELVES, but when THEY wind up on a list, they cry foul
I wouldn't have said "stupid" party since they're both a front for a scam IMO. I agree with your sentiment and would like to call attention to the fact that my posts, similar to yours, also receive the negative mod points.
Across the last four or five topics which I've spent any significant time on I've found that the mods have short attention spans and prop up the herd mentality. Original thoughts, no matter how truthful, always end up at the same level as the mindless drivel of the ACs.
Yes, mods, I'm talking to you. Kiss my hairy white backside smile.:)
Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams
Just because the first political course of action that you can think of is harassment and prank calls doesn't mean that's the prevailing mentality.
I would like to know more about these members if only to try and map their social network. I think it'd be quite enlightening to see how easy it is to move and launder funds within the loopholes of today's enormous government. Maybe more people will wake up and smell the scam that costs us 60% of our income every year while execs, like the 292 at Enron, pilfer billions of our hard-earned dollars.
Slashdot Mirror
2.2 GHz sure kicks 40 MHz,
Indeed. But had Intel's marketing not killed the RISC 680x0 line we could easily have 2.2 GHz on a platform (such as AmigaOS... laugh all you want, it's my favoriate) that would've put MS to shame.
4. Win95/98/NT/2000/XP (poke fun all you want, but you can't argue that these weren't a major improvement over what they replaced)
Only for the x86 lemmings. Those of us who were on the 680x0 train (which was steaming happily into the RISC Alpha until Intel monopolized the consumer market) had trouble accepting the fact that we were now being forced to use a product that was inherently broken just because the advertising market killed the superior technology.
Then the common folk added insult to injury by labeling us as "whiners" just because _THEY_ didn't know how bad they were being screwed.
Honestly, I hope that every person in the room was thinking the same thing:
*under breath* "Why aren't we getting digital copies of your speech, numbskull? Because your company would sue us into oblivion and have the FBI raid our homes if we did!" *grumble* *continue scratching notes feverishly with pen*
But you could lose everything you own, thanks to a Microsoft software bug and the EULA plainly states 'As Is' and they will not be held liable for your losses
That's a bit arbitrary since GNU doesn't claim to be responsible for your data--but at least GNU doesn't charge you $200/copy for it.
The way Linux is designed and the way Windows (especially with integrated IE) is designed are fundamentally different, and one (guess which) is by design more insecure
I agree, for now. What's going to happen in five years when KDE or Gnome developers decide to continue with their fledgling registries? They're not official called a "registry" but it doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out where a general system database is going.
Perhaps it was because no reporter was willing to bet their career on a laptop running Windows XP?
I chuckled at the same thing but figured it was because no one wanted to risk being dragged out of the room by the FBI for reproducing copyrighted material with a proper license agreement signed by Ballmer, the entire MS legal department, and Bill Gates' dog to boot.
Just another daily bash-Microsoft article
/. I'm constantly inundated with pro-MS server banner ads which peddle the supposed lower TCO and higher performance. Perhaps that's just for the laugh factor, though...
We need a good balance. The major media releases snippets which bash Linux just as often, if not more. Heck, even here on
The amount of bookkeeping the type systems of Pascal, C, Java, and C++ force on the programmer is significant
:-) That's a bean-counter issue, not a programming issue. We all know that the managers want more code, faster, with fewer noticeable bugs, and they want it last quarter. I feel this is why the proprietary code industry constantly reinvents itself with new featureware. The latest programming language can just as easily be a product of the push for featureware or the latest end-around flanking maneuver to hedge in the market with IP. Strictly speaking it can't compete in quality with the code produced by enthusiasts who don't have deadlines and don't have a corporate agenda that needs them to use the latest macro library in order to use features which will justify a patent or IP lawsuit.
:-) I've found that if I talk about the ideal points of my own industry (pharmaceutical R&D) the people above me on the corporate ladder turn quite rude.
I don't see that as a bad thing. Writing routines to draw boxes, circles, requesters, dialogs, or windows is a significant load on programmers. Eventually programmers created libraries such as the svgalibs and evolved towards X11. X11 inherited additional functionality through interfaces such as GTK, Qt, GDK, KDE libs, or whatever Windows uses. The area isn't really my forte but it shows that if a large and cumbersome task is needed again and again the programmers will write libraries to handle the necessary manipulations.
With languages that attempt to intuitively guess at manipulating variables of different types there's no need to work on refining a system to generate numerical values from strings or to think of strings as numerical values (ML). If that very basic division is a constant reminder to the programmer that a "420" isn't really a 420, combined with the considerations of what it's going to take to turn that set of ASCII values into the proper number, some of it may carryover the next time someone else's library is #included.
If you're concerned about programmer productivity, efficacy, and correctness
Heh.
A language that forces you to think about the storage size and layout of every variable is certainly strict, but is that really the kind of strictness that prevents errors
It's certainly not the only mode of thought that prevents errors. You and I both know that good programming is like good health--there's no single magic secret. If the programmer develops the intricate mode of thought it will aid their programming just as a routine of gentle exercise aids health. You just need to remember to do it often enough for it to eventually become an embedded mode. In today's world being pedantic about variables isn't stressed because enough languages make the correct assumptions (and because managers don't like to have their superiority challenged). I feel that the overall model created explains why security isn't a strong point in proprietary code. The reason is both economical and philosophical.
That may be true, but all things are not equal
You're right. I don't program for a living so I can afford to preach from the philosophical armchair of ideality.
I don't believe that the grouping is statistically significant. Canada can provide cheap high speed internet access to areas as remote as the Whitehorse (Yukon), Thompson (northern Manitoba), and Edmonton (Alberta).
Aside from recognizing strict anticompetitive profit schemes, why can't the US do it?
I said fewer, not none. :)
The only way to really know would be to do a double-blind crossover trial of 10000 programmers given the same kernel-sized assignment in two different languages and compare the number of overflows in each matching the two subject groups for time spent, length of code, number and grouping of variables and arrays, and possibly even match them for the institution that they were schooled at to accomodate for different trends in teaching methods. It's pretty much impossible.
All things being equal, a strict structure produces fewer errors.
Population density
Ignores the article and gets modded informative.
Did you read the part which compares the US to Canada?
It might as well be a strict-typed language and barf on an expression such as "2" + 2!
That's my personal preference. I don't want the language that I use to try and make assumptions about what to do with the combination of different types of variables. As a programmer I feel that it enforces a valid and advantageous logic of purism when the language requires that the programmer be constantly aware of delineations between variable types. This mindset encourages the programmer to constantly think about what data is passed using the variables. I feel that, if this were strictly enforced, it would lead to fewer buffer overflows. Programmers in general would be mindful that the data in the buffer might not be what they expect.
Certainly this approach may require routines to translate variables from one type to another and back. Graphical toolkits evolved and so would variable transformations.
See, I could've sunk myself into debt I couldn't handle
No, you couldn't. You'd have to be a complete reject to screw up in the military.
My mother could have sunk herself into debt she couldn't handle, but didn't
No, she couldn't. There was no wholesale industry in keeping people a large portion of the working population in debt in her time. As long as a person was willing to work an honest day they were paid a living wage. Her generation would have to be complete rejects to get into debt.
the decision to *not* get into extensive debt was made when our respective incomes were low
Even though you've always managed to just scrape by you refuse to acknowledge that it would have taken no more than twice that scraping to have forced you to live on credit. Just a little less on the BAS/BAQ. Just a little more on the price of gasoline. Just a little more on the rent. Any one of those factors could've pushed you from your sanctimonious frugality into a life on credit. You're hopeless in your self-righteousness.
See, having grown up in economic conditions that you claim must 'force' everyone into debt
How many years were you subsidized? I didn't say everyone. I said a statistically significant portion of the population. The average credit card debt for American households is $8k. It's easy for you to label your fellow Americans as morons.
I'm not buying that argument
I have yet to meet a dictator who will admit they've wronged anyone.
Well, then, you differ far greatly from myself. See, I think the thing to do with an actually dishonest contract is NOT SIGN IT
You are blessed by the privelege.
whine
Troll
The thing to do with such things is to get a law passed against them
10 out of 10 dictators agree: "Let them eat cake."
Business does not equal individual. Sorry to burst your bubble but that is silly.
Not in the slightest. Those who sit closest to the top take the lion's share of the salary. It sure is something that American CEOs are the best compensated in the world or that American execs (and politicians) happily vote themselves massive pay raises, bonuses, benefits, and retirement packages that they would never consider offering to the people actually paying the taxes.
Pyramid scheme? No go read an economics book
I imagine you're relying on a definition which makes one scheme legal and the other scheme an illegal pyramid scheme. The inner workings of both are the same.
Did you receive money? Did you sign papers saying you'd pay it back? Did you spend the money?
.com boom-bust. The actions taken by predatory lenders at those times was perfectly "legal" but you'll be hard pressed to find people who will support the intent behind them--outside of those who profited. Excepting those who are already quite wealthy I cannot find a single person who felt that their investments were used fairly from '99-'02. Add insult to injury when average salary decreases 10% over '00-'02.
I'll happily sign my name to a dishonest contract for the opportunity to expose a fraud. I'll do it time and again with every chance I'm given.
Unless the lender violated the law, that's "real debt"
I suppose you'll continue to deny the power of corporate lobbies to manipulate laws above and beyond the control of the truthful meaning of democracy. Once again I refer to the Irish Potato Famine and the American Great Depression and the recent
AFAICT you're just someone who wants any wild reason to feel like you're not doing a wrong by not paying money owed back
Now we're back to the original point. You're taking the moral high road because mother military gave you an opportunity that most Americans don't have. What did you say about ad hominem earlier? You're ignoring the actual debate: that the debt is not real debt but is part of a contrived scheme.
ending money and expecting to receive it back, with a fair interest rate, is not morally reprehensible
Since when is 19% APR, plus any tax and fee that can be stuffed into legal fine print, a fair interest rate? You're justifying yourself using terms which you don't qualify for.
Give tax breaks to the rich?
When are you guys going to stop sprouting this nonsense?
You're right. George Bush himself said that we don't need to give tax breaks to the rich because they can probably afford accountants who can find the loopholes for them.
And your statistical analysis completely ignores the return that the rich get. So what if they paid 64% of the total federal tax? They also reap the lion's share of the profit from the businesses which the government disburses the tax money to! The government does disburse that money, right? Where does it go? Who gets it? Don't cop out with roads and utilities.
What's it called? Pyramid scheme? If it costs me 64 million to get everyone else to chip in 14 million then I'm turning a profit when I walk away with 78 million.
By the way, what's the name of that "hackers and hippies" party? I want to vote for them!
Sorry. Kevin Mitnick and Tony Chong are convicted criminals and are much too closely monitored to found a political party.
That said--I agree.
The simple fact is that you signed your name on paperwork
You would support any morally reprehensible action as long as you can get a signature on a legally enforceably contract first. Perhaps you should check your own honor. I feel no guilt in exposing a disingenuous contract.
You have, yourself, illustrated that the individual has no control over a system which has been overwhelmingly mapped by the larger organization.
Of course the credit companies try to make what they can. Of course they use such methods.
Good. As long as we both accept that life isn't fair then they can assume their share of the responsibility for lending money to people who are in a demographic that they well know cannot repay the money. It's called predatory lending, it is illegal, and it's also very costly to prove. That's very convenient since, by virtue of being the lender, they know the client can't afford to mount a legal battle.
you're dishonoring yourself
Spare me the sap. The credit industry is the antithesis of honor--profitting from the misfortunes of others (natural or contrived). Perhaps you should read up about the way Irish Catholics were treated during the Potato Famine and afterwards. I take a large amount of enjoyment in exposing a fraud. My honor is in knowing that I will not waste my life lamenting being taken advantage of by thieves.
Okay... back to the meaningful point rather than picking apart the nature of personal association...
Where is there any evidence that this is being used for harassment? I think the citizens of America would be quite happy to know which of these people are receiving the greatest small business subsidies from their taxpayer dollars.
Why is this insightful? This is flamebait.
The KKK is a convicted aggressive violent organization.
Anti-RNC coalitions most often stage political action. This rarely involves any sort of physical violence but most often in private attorneys investigating campaign contributions and mapping networks of individuals who are working together to defraud taxpayers.
As usual, though, since your only concept of political protest is violent then it's obvious that everyone's idea of political protest is violent.
I do have a legitimate question: other than harrassment, what is a legitimate purpose for these postings?
Mapping social networks, following taxpayer money, tracing illegitimate contributions which have been laundered through legitimate avenues?
That's what the American government boils down to: money. It's not about right or wrong. It's not about truth and justice. It's about PROFIT. If there's ever anything about our government which puzzles you or doesn't seem right you have simply to do one thing: Take 10 minutes out to follow the money and see who profits.
I do not lament the posting of lists of political advocates. Third party advocates are already on watch lists as "individuals of interest". Why shouldn't major party advocates be on lists of "possible money launderers"?
..the crybabies in the stupid party love to have all sorts of lists THEMSELVES, but when THEY wind up on a list, they cry foul
:)
I wouldn't have said "stupid" party since they're both a front for a scam IMO. I agree with your sentiment and would like to call attention to the fact that my posts, similar to yours, also receive the negative mod points.
Across the last four or five topics which I've spent any significant time on I've found that the mods have short attention spans and prop up the herd mentality. Original thoughts, no matter how truthful, always end up at the same level as the mindless drivel of the ACs.
Yes, mods, I'm talking to you. Kiss my hairy white backside smile.
Lets not kid ourselves, nobody is going to use this information to send these men fruitbaskets or singing telegrams
Just because the first political course of action that you can think of is harassment and prank calls doesn't mean that's the prevailing mentality.
I would like to know more about these members if only to try and map their social network. I think it'd be quite enlightening to see how easy it is to move and launder funds within the loopholes of today's enormous government. Maybe more people will wake up and smell the scam that costs us 60% of our income every year while execs, like the 292 at Enron, pilfer billions of our hard-earned dollars.